The Real Reasons "Pixels" Underperformed

It seems like every 30 minutes Variety or some other "V" named media outlet is publishing another editorial about how "Pixels" $24 million opening weekend proves Adam Sandler is no longer relevant. Most of these opinions run the range from accusations of dated, sexist humor to his failure to create variety in his film plotlines.

Frankly, most of these editorials are just some individual writer's attempts to push their own agenda onto a film that failed to earn back it's production budget on the first weekend. Most of the opinions are, frankly, ill-conceived and bordering on ridiculous.

The truth is, the movie is the kind of funny that causes audience members to blow soda out of their noses on several occasions. Sure, it's primary subject is a washed up 80's gaming star, (played by an almost washed up 90's movie star), finding love and fame when an alien invader brings back 80's gaming technology - greatly enhanced - to kick our butts in a "to the death" real-life video game match. A bit of a stretch, yes, but then so is a superhero with a suit that makes him ant-sized.

So why would such a funny movie go largely unnoticed by a culture that worships video games and summer-time explosions?

The primary reasons I see are timing and audience. First of all, Adam Sandler as a leading man is mainly going to appeal to the same people who loved him and his man-child, SNL-born sense of humor in "Happy Gilmore." That means the bulk of his fans today are adults in their forties, maybe early fifties. Most of this audience has matured, as have their tastes. Matured, but not died. We still love Adam and a good laugh. But now we're dragging kids behind us like magnetic mines most weekends. Our kids are typically pre-teens to young twenty-somethings at this point. (Mostly pre-teens since us early GenX'ers had a tendency to wait until we hit 30 to procreate.)

Which leads us to a conflict between audience and content. Sure, we loved his politically incorrect, disgusting sexual referencing jokes when we were in our twenties and it was still okay to make a joke that involved a junior high view of sex or the opposite gender. Unfortunately for "Pixels", we sure as hell don't want our sixth grade kids asking us what a Martha-Serena sandwich means. However, the presence of Pac Man and Qbert in the trailer is highly attractive to our 8 to 12 year-old kids who have grown to love the modern versions of these classic games thanks to their mobile apps. For older kids, these same apps are too childish and too easy to play to draw their attention, automatically alienating the 13 to 18 crowd who would never admit to their zombie-killing friends that they love Pac Man. Nope, better go see "Ant Man" again instead because, let's face it, you're not a cool teen if you don't catch the latest Marvel flick. You're even more uncool if you admit you like those "baby" games based on 80's titles.

Which again brings us to timing. "Pixels" would've done much better in the fall, when younger fare is scarce as Oscars season leads to a rush of more adult-focused fare. (Not to be confused with "adult films.") Why on earth they timed the release against guaranteed blockbusters like the latest Marvel superhero release is beyond me. No one else was dumb enough to take on the Disney juggernaut - not even Illumination Entertainment and their guaranteed-success "Minions." (Note they released the week before.)

If only Adam Sandler had cut most of the unnecessary and stomach-turning Fire Blaster sex jokes and released it around late August/early September, he would've drawn in a much larger pre-teen/tween audience with parental blessing. That would've likely turned this mediocre disappointment into an unexpected hit. Sigh.